Susan acted as sole counsel for the government defending two separate challenges brought by Unison, to the legality of the employment tribunal and EAT fees regime introduced in July 2013: Unison v Lord Chancellor (no 1) and (no 2). In May 2014, she acted for the Judicial Appointments Commission in its successful defence of the first judicial review challenge to be heard by a Court: Jones v Judicial Appointments Commission which concerned the operation of the Good Character Guidance in relation to points accrued on an applicant’s driving licence. Susan has 20 years’ experience in all areas of employment law with particular expertise in discrimination claims. In 2013 she successfully represented an Employment Judge in his defence of a claim that he has aided sex, race and disability discrimination against the claimant by her employer: Sivanandan v Cole. Complex issues that have arisen in recent cases include the territorial applicability of certain statutory claims such as unfair dismissal, the effect of ECJ case-law on the operation and calculation of holiday under the Working Time Regulations and whether a claimant is an employee, worker or contractor. She regularly acts pro bono for appellants in the Employment Appeal Tribunal under the ELAAS scheme.
This week Susan Chan of 42BR has appeared for the Lord Chancellor in the second judicial review challenge to the employment tribunal fees system brought by the union Unison. A year ago Susan successfully defended the tribunal fees scheme against Unison’s first challenge, which was backed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).23rd October 2014 Read more
Judgment was handed down on 23rd May 2014 in the first judicial review claim against the Judicial Appointments Commission to be heard by a court: Jones v Judicial Appointments Commission  EWH 1680 (Admin). Susan Chan of 42BR acted as sole counsel for the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). Mr Jones was represented by Jonathan Swift QC.27th May 2014 Read more